Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

There are smart ways to diversify our exports

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Philip Cross

The Bank of Canada recently cut interest rates again, with further cuts likely in response to Donald Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Canadian exports. This continues the Bank’s reflexive turn to lower interest rates to goose growth every time the economy slows that began during the 2008 global financial crisis and reached its apex during the outbreak of the Covid pandemic when rates essentially hit their zero lower bound.

It’s time policymakers in Ottawa stop relying on easy money policies in response to every hiccup in economic growth. Lower interest rates have introduced major distortions into Canada’s economy. They have fueled excessive debt levels in all sectors of the economy, helped to create a housing bubble that will depress growth when it bursts, undermined our consensus on the usefulness of immigration when excessive demand raised the cost of shelter, and led youths to lose hope of achieving the dream of owning a home. Housing’s unsustainably large share of our economy helps undermine our potential productivity, the lack of which Bank of Canada Deputy Governor Carolyn Rogers last year called a “break the glass” emergency. However, the Bank’s own easy money policies spurs the shift of more resources to housing and encourage governments to ignore taking actions that would boost business investment and exports, the two sectors needed to improve our long-term productivity and competitiveness.

There are policy alternatives to just mechanically lowering interest rates and juicing housing demand. The silver lining in Trump’s tariff threats is they drive home to Canadians the twin follies of not diversifying our energy exports from the U.S. market and not lowering internal barriers to trade among our provinces. We witlessly ignored opportunities to move on both fronts for nearly a decade after Trump fired his opening salvo in the trade war with punitive tariffs on our aluminum and steel industries in 2017.

Energy, our leading export, depends on the U.S. market for 93 per cent of its export earnings. Canada has wasted numerous opportunities over the past decade to open overseas markets for oil and gas. The Trudeau government cancelled the Northern Gateway pipeline that would have sent Alberta crude to Asia. The proposed Energy East pipeline to send oil to New Brunswick and ultimately Europe floundered after the federal government complicated the approval process. Multiple proposals for LNG projects were rejected, although the Quebec government is reconsidering its opposition to ship natural gas from an LNG terminal in Saguenay to Europe. Quebec is not reflexively against pipelines: its former Premier Jean Charest boasts how his government oversaw one connecting crude oil imports landing at Levis to refineries in Montreal by clearly outlining the benefits to Quebecers. Restricting our oil and gas exports to the U.S. has depressed their prices, costing Canada tens of billions of dollars of lost revenue and betraying our European allies when they desperately needed alternatives to Russian natural gas supplies following its attack on Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the federal government displayed little leadership in trying to get the provinces to reduce the thicket of regulations and restrictions that impair trade within Canada. The 2017 Canada Free Trade Agreement provided a road map to potentially lower internal trade barriers, but most provinces have been reluctant to tread that path. It is the height of hypocrisy for Canadians to complain about Trump’s threatened tariffs when we tolerate internal trade barriers that are every bit as important and costly to our economy. Statistics Canada, for example, found that trade within Canada moves as if there were a 7 per cent tariff on goods moving between provinces, while trade within the U.S. flows as if there was no effective tariff.

The shock and outrage Canadians are expressing about Trump’s pending 25 per cent tariff on most exports can be channeled to our benefit. Achieving that will require governments to stop our dangerous over-reliance on low interest rates to stimulate housing. Instead, the focus should be improving our access to markets outside the U.S., which are clearly viable and profitable for goods such as oil and gas. Furthermore, if we truly believe our own rhetoric about the benefits of trade, we need to take concrete steps to liberalize trade within Canada.

Philip Cross 2014.jpg

Philip Cross

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Bjorn Lomborg

Net zero’s cost-benefit ratio is crazy high

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Canada has made a legal commitment to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Back in 2015, then-Prime Minister Trudeau promised that climate action will “create jobs and economic growth” and the federal government insists it will create a “strong economy.” The truth is that the net zero policy generates vast costs and very little benefit—and Canada would be better off changing direction.

Achieving net zero carbon emissions is far more daunting than politicians have ever admitted. Canada is nowhere near on track. Annual Canadian CO₂ emissions have increased 20 per cent since 1990. In the time that Trudeau was prime minister, fossil fuel energy supply actually increased over 11 per cent. Similarly, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy supply (not just electricity) increased from 75 per cent in 2015 to 77 per cent in 2023.

Over the same period, the switch from coal to gas, and a tiny 0.4 percentage point increase in the energy from solar and wind, has reduced annual CO₂ emissions by less than three per cent. On that trend, getting to zero won’t take 25 years as the Liberal government promised, but more than 160 years. One study shows that the government’s current plan which won’t even reach net-zero will cost Canada a quarter of a million jobs, seven per cent lower GDP and wages on average $8,000 lower.

Globally, achieving net-zero will be even harder. Remember, Canada makes up about 1.5 per cent of global CO₂ emissions, and while Canada is already rich with plenty of energy, the world’s poor want much more energy.

In order to achieve global net-zero by 2050, by 2030 we would already need to achieve the equivalent of removing the combined emissions of China and the United States — every year. This is in the realm of science fiction.

The painful Covid lockdowns of 2020 only reduced global emissions by about six per cent. To achieve net zero, the UN points out that we would need to have doubled those reductions in 2021, tripled them in 2022, quadrupled them in 2023, and so on. This year they would need to be sextupled, and by 2030 increased 11-fold. So far, the world hasn’t even managed to start reducing global carbon emissions, which last year hit a new record.

Data from both the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration give added cause for skepticism. Both organizations foresee the world getting more energy from renewables: an increase from today’s 16 per cent to between one-quarter to one-third of all primary energy by 2050. But that is far from a transition. On an optimistically linear trend, this means we’re a century or two away from achieving 100 percent renewables.

Politicians like to blithely suggest the shift away from fossil fuels isn’t unprecedented, because in the past we transitioned from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. The truth is, humanity hasn’t made a real energy transition even once. Coal didn’t replace wood but mostly added to global energy, just like oil and gas have added further additional energy. As in the past, solar and wind are now mostly adding to our global energy output, rather than replacing fossil fuels.

Indeed, it’s worth remembering that even after two centuries, humanity’s transition away from wood is not over. More than two billion mostly poor people still depend on wood for cooking and heating, and it still provides about 5 per cent of global energy.

Like Canada, the world remains fossil fuel-based, as it delivers more than four-fifths of energy. Over the last half century, our dependence has declined only slightly from 87 per cent to 82 per cent, but in absolute terms we have increased our fossil fuel use by more than 150 per cent. On the trajectory since 1971, we will reach zero fossil fuel use some nine centuries from now, and even the fastest period of recent decline from 2014 would see us taking over three centuries.

Global warming will create more problems than benefits, so achieving net-zero would see real benefits. Over the century, the average person would experience benefits worth $700 (CAD) each year.

But net zero policies will be much more expensive. The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Every year over the 21st century, costs would vastly outweigh benefits, and global costs would exceed benefits by over CAD 32 trillion each year.

We would see much higher transport costs, higher electricity costs, higher heating and cooling costs and — as businesses would also have to pay for all this — drastic increases in the price of food and all other necessities. Just one example: net-zero targets would likely increase gas costs some two-to-four times even by 2030, costing consumers up to $US52.6 trillion. All that makes it a policy that just doesn’t make sense—for Canada and for the world.

Bjørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Business

‘Great Reset’ champion Klaus Schwab resigns from WEF

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Schwab’s World Economic Forum became a globalist hub for population control, radical climate agenda, and transhuman ideology under his decades-long leadership.

Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum and the face of the NGO’s elitist annual get-together in Davos, Switzerland, has resigned as chair of WEF. 

Over the decades, but especially over the past several years, the WEF’s Davos annual symposium has become a lightning rod for conservative criticism due to the agendas being pushed there by the elites. As the Associated Press noted: 

Widely regarded as a cheerleader for globalization, the WEF’s Davos gathering has in recent years drawn criticism from opponents on both left and right as an elitist talking shop detached from lives of ordinary people. 

While WEF itself had no formal power, the annual Davos meeting brought together many of the world’s wealthiest and most influential figures, contributing to Schwab’s personal worth and influence.

Schwab’s resignation on April 20 was announced by the Geneva-based WEF on April 21, but did not indicate why the 88-year-old was resigning. “Following my recent announcement, and as I enter my 88th year, I have decided to step down from the position of Chair and as a member of the Board of Trustees, with immediate effect,” Schwab said in a brief statement. He gave no indication of what he plans to do next. 

Schwab founded the World Economic Forum – originally the European Management Forum – in 1971, and its initial mission was to assist European business leaders in competing with American business and to learn from U.S. models and innovation. However, the mission soon expanded to the development of a global economic agenda.  

Schwab detailed his own agenda in several books, including The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016), in which he described the rise of a new industrial era in which technologies such artificial intelligence, gene editing, and advanced robotics would blur the lines between the digital, physical, and biological worlds. Schwab wrote: 

We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society …

The Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are. It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships. It is already changing our health and leading to a “quantified” self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation.

How? Microchips implanted into humans, for one. Schwab was a tech optimist who appeared to heartily welcome transhumanism; in a 2016 interview with France 24 discussing his book, he stated:  

And then you have the microchip, which will be implanted, probably within the next ten years, first to open your car, your home, or to do your passport, your payments, and then it will be in your body to monitor your health.

In 2020, mere months into the pandemic, Schwab published COVID-19: The Great Reset, in which he detailed his view of the opportunity presented by the growing global crisis. According to Schwab, the crisis was an opportunity for a global reset that included “stakeholder capitalism,” in which corporations could integrate social and environmental goals into their operations, especially working toward “net-zero emissions” and a massive transition to green energy, and “harnessing” the Fourth Industrial Revolution, including artificial intelligence and automation. 

Much of Schwab’s personal wealth came from running the World Economic Forum; as chairman, he earned an annual salary of 1 million Swiss francs (approximately $1 million USD), and the WEF was supported financially through membership fees from over 1,000 companies worldwide as well as significant contributions from organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Vice Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe is now serving as interim chairman until his replacement has been selected. 

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture WarSeeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of AbortionPatriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life MovementPrairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Continue Reading

Trending

X